HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 11 Proposed Amendments to Article 26 - Hillside Development, Overlay District Extending the Potential Use of Density Transfer (Cluster Development)
Meeting Date: July 2, 2007
Meeting Type: Regular Session
Department: Development Services
Staff Contact: Mark Metzge~1 'M. ~
S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726-3775 !II'"
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: 15 minutes
ITEM TITLE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 26-HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY DISTRICT EXTENDING THE POTENTIAL USE OF DENSITY
TRANSFER (CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT).
Conduct a first reading and public hearing for AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS
26.030,26.050 (INCLUDING TABLE 26-1) AND 26.070 OF ARTICLE 26 "HD
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLY DISTRICT" OF THE SPRINGFIELD
. DEVELOPMENT CODE TO EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF "DENSITY
TRANSFER" TO MAKE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF REMAINING BUILDABLE
RESIDENTIAL LANDS; REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO PAY FOR PEER REVIEW
OF TECHNICAL STUDIES REQUIRED FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT; AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSIONI
FINANCIAL
IMP ACT:
Development standards currently allow a "density transfer" from steep slopes to areas of
lesser slope on south-facing hillsides in exchange for the preservation of the steep slopes.
At issue is whether to extend the density transfer provision to north, west and east facing
slopes.
Attachment I: Adopting Ordinance with Exhibits
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 3: Public Testimony and Correspondence
Attachment 4: Work Session Follow-up: Slope/Angle Conversion and Hillside Construction
The proposed changes to Article 26 include: I) various changes needed to implement an
extension of density transfer to all-facing hillsides with a slope of 15 to 25%; 2) allowing
"average slope" to be used when calculating the number of units eligible for density
transfer; and 3) the addition of a requirement in the Development Code that the developer
pay for "peer review" of the sophisticated geotechnical and engineering analysis by a
consultant of the City's choice for hillside development in order to ensure safe development
and stable slopes.
Density transfer is proposed for use in the Heritage Park development (Gray-Jaqua property
in South Thurston Hills) on a north-facing hillside to allow an exchange of higher density
development on lower slopes and the preservation of the upper slopes for park land. The
pre-development agreement signed by the City with the developer of the Gray-Jaqua
property includes a provision allowing consideration of a density transfer on the north
facing slope of the property, provided that such density transfer is consistent with the City's
development code and land use regulations. Other developments are being considered in
the Thurston Hills that would benefit from an expanded application of density transfer to
north, east and west facing slopes. .
In work session on June 25th, Council requested a table showing the relationship between
percent of slope and degree of slope. Attachment 4 includes a conversion table showing
percent slope and degrees of slope. Additional information and illustrations are contained
in the attachment describing grading and siting practices for hillside development.
The Planning Commission met three times between February and April 2007, to evaluate
the safety and prudence of allowing the proposed expansion of density transfers and voted
unanimously to approve the proposed changes. Minutes of those meetings and submitted
testimony are found in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.
ORDINANCE NO.
(General)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 26.030, 26.050 (INCLUDING TABLE 26-1) AND
26.070 OF ARTICLE 26 "HD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT" OFTHE
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF "DENSITY
TRANSFER" TO MAKE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF REMAINING BUILDABLE
RESIDENTIAL LANDS; REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO PAY FOR PEER REVIEW OF
TECHNICAL STUDIES REQUIRED FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, The Springfield Development Code ~as adopted in May 1986 and revised in March
1998, to ensure that development within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Springfield is ofa
proper type, design and location; and
WHEREAS, Article 26 (lID Hillside Development Overlay District) of the Springfield
Development Code describes the policies and development standards that apply to hillside
development; and
WHEREAS, Section 8.010 of the Springfield Development Code allows the Director, the
Planning Commission, the City Councilor a resident of the City of Springfield to initiate an
amendment of the Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Director initiated a text amendment's to Sections 26.030, 26.050 (including
Table 26-1) and 26.07Q of Article 26 of the Springfield Development Code on December 12,
2006; and
WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth procedures for
amendments of the Development Code text and those procedures were followed; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission unanimously recommended the proposed
amendments to Article 26 ofthe Springfield Development Code be approved by the Springfield
City Council by action taken at a public meeting held on April 17, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council conducted a public hearing on July 2, 2007 and having
considered the matter in regular session on that date, is now ready to take action based upon the
above recommendations and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the
evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing held in the matter of adopting the
amendments to Article 26 of the Springfield Development Code (Hillside Development Overlay
District).
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Amendments to Sections 26.030, 26.050 (including Table 26-1) and 26.070 of
Article 26, HD Hillside Development Overlay District, of the Springfield Development Code as
set forth in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted, added to, and made
part of the Springfield Development Code.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
O~M~NTl-
1-1
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date action is taken by the Common
Council of the City of Springfield to approve this amendment.
Section 4. The Springfield City Council adopts the findings set forth in the Staff Report which
demonstrate conformance of this amendment to the Metro Plan, applicable State statutes and
applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules, and is attached as Exhibit B.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this
. , 2007 by a vote of _ for and _ against.
day of
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this_ day of
,2007.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Recorder
~c~~=
ORDINANCE Page -2-
1-2
EXHIBIT A
"26.030 APPLICABILITY.
The HD Overlay District shall apply in residential zoning districts within the city limits and the
City's urbanizable areas above 670 feet elevation or to development areas below 670 feet in
elevation where any portion of the development area exceeds 15 % slope as determined using
the slope calculation described in subsection 26.050 (1)(a) 'Step A-I '."
"26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY AND OPTIONS.
(1) For the purpose of calculating the allowed number of dwelling units in a development area
below 670 feet in elevation, the "average slope" as defined below may be used.
S = 0.00229 I L
A
Where:
S = Average % of slope for the area.
I = Contour interval. (Not greater than 10 feet).
L = Summation of length of the contour lines within the area.
A = Area in acres.
Where the average slope of the portion of the development area below 670 feet in elevation is
less than 15%, the number of dwelling units allowed shall be as provided in Article 16.010(1).
The developer has two options for the development of steeply sloped land. The first option,
Option "A", is designed to correlate minimum lot sizes to the average slope of the development
area. The second option, Option "B", is designed to allow for a density transfer bonus to
stimulate development on those portions of the development area where the slope of the land is
less than 15 percent. A combination of Options "A" and "B" may be used.
(2) OPTION "A" - AVERAGE SLOPE - MINIMUM LOT SIZE. The site
development requirements of the LDR District shall apply, with the exception of the
minimum lot size.and duplex standards. Determination of minimum lot size where the
slope is 15 percent or greater is a 3 step process.
(a) Step 'A-I' Determine the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is:
1. Less than 15 percent.
EXHIBIT A Page -1-
1-3
2. From 15 percent to 35 percent.
3. Greater than 35 percent.
Use the following formula to determine the % of slope:
Vertical distance between contours = V X 100 = % slope
Horizontal distance between contours = H
Indicate the portions of the development area that are less than 15
percent; from 15 percent to 35 percent; and greater than 35 percent then
use a planimeter or other technology acceptable to the City Engineer to
determine the land area of each category.
(b) Step 'A-2' Determine the average slope of the portion of the development area
where the slope of land is from 15 percent to 35 percent by using the following
formula:
S = 0.00229 I L
A
Where:
S = Average % of slope for the area where the slope ranges from 15 percent to
35 percent.
I = Contour interval. (Not greater than 10 feet).
L = Summation of length of the contour lines within the area where the slope is
from 15 percent to 35 percent.
A = Area in acres of the portion of the parcel where the slope is from 15 percent
to 35 percent.
(c) Step 'A-3' Determine the minimum lot size for the portion of the development
area where the slope of the land is greater than 15% by using the following
Table:
TABLE 26-1
AVERAGE SLOPE MINIMUM LOT SIZE MINIMUM PER LOT
PER DWELLING UNIT FRONTAGE
Less than 15% and below 670' See the applicable lot/parcel size and frontage requirements
in Article 16.030 (1)-(4) and (6) of this Code.
Less than 15% on wooded lots** 10,000 sq. ft. 60 ft.
EXHIBIT A Page -2-
1-4
15% - 25% 10,000 Sq. Ft. 90 ft.
25% - 35% 20,000 sq. ft. 150 ft.
Over 35% 40,000 sq. ft. 200 ft.
* Panhandles are permitted only when requirements of this Section pertaining to fire protection and
lot size are met and the lot cannot be served with a public street. Minimum frontage standards for
all other lots may be amended by the Director when it is found that the topography or location of
natural features prevent achieving the standard. CuI de sac frontages are as specified in Section
16.030.
* * Wooded lot is defined as a lot or parcel 10,000 sq. ft. or larger, above 670 feet in elevation,
which contains more than 5 trees eight inches or greater dbh. (Section 2.010 of this Code).
(3) OPTION "B" DENSITY TRANSFER BONUS. In order to promote the preservation
of natural slopes greater than 25 percent and'encourage solar access, development
density transfer is encouraged when dividing land- with slopes greater than 25%. The
density transfer bonus is only feasible where there are sizable portions of the
development area which have slopes less than 25 percent. Determination of the density
transfer bonus is a 4 step process: -
(a) Step 'B-1' Determine the area of the parcel where the average slope of the land
IS:
1. Less than 15 percent.
2. From 15 percent to 25 percent.
3. From 25 percent to 35 percent.
4. Greater than 35 percent.
(b) . Step 'B-2' Determine the average slope of the area of the parcel where the
average slope of the land is greater than 15 percent by using the formula
identified in Option A, Step 'A-2'.
(c) Step 'B_3' Determine the number of. potential lots for the total development
area which could have been permitted, for the portion of the parcel where the
average slope is greater than 15 percent, if the average slope option had ,
been considered by using Table 26-1 in Option "A", Step 'A-3'.
(d) Step 'B-4' Multiply the number of potential lots by 1.2 to determine the density
that may be transferred to those sections of the development area where the
slopes are less than 25 percent. In no case shall the density of the developed
portion of the site exceed 8 dwelling units per developable acre, (i.e., excluding
streets and open space). - Land of greater than 15_percent average slope used to
calculate a density transfer bonus shall be maintained as permanent open
EXHIBIT A Page -3-
1-5
space or dedicated for park use. Modification of standards as stated in Section
26.080 of this Article may be applied to the entire development area."
"26.070 REPORTS REQUIRED.
Where the buildable portion of the land to be developed exceeds 15 percent average slope, the
. following reports shall be required and their conclusions applied in order to prevent or mitigate
possible hazards to life and property and adverse impacts on the natural environment, consistent
with the purpose of this Article. The applicant shall fund peer review of the reports as deemed
necessary by the City.
(1) Geotechnical Report. This report shall include data regarding the geology ofthe site,
the nature, distribution, and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations
for grading procedures, design criteria for corrective measures, and options and
recommendations to maintain soil and slope stability and minimize erosion of the site to
be developed in a manner imposing the minimum variance from the natural conditions.
The investigation and report shall be prepared by a civil engineer/geologist or a
geotechnical engineer.
(2) Grading Plan Report. This plan shall include the following information:
(a) Existing and proposed details and contours (five-foot intervals) of property;
(b) Details of terrain and area drainage;
(c) Location of any existing buildings or structures on the property where the work
is to be performed, the location of any existing buildings or structures on land of
adjacent owners which are within 100 feet of the property or which may be
affected by the proposed grading operations, and proposed or approximate
locations of structures relative to adjacent topography;
(d) The direction of drainage flow and the approximate. grade of all streets with the
final determination to be made in accordance with Section 26.070(4) of this
Article;
(e) Limiting dimensions, elevations, or .finished contours to be achieved by the
grading, including all cut and fill slopes, proposed drainage channels, and
related construction;
(f) Detailed plans and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage devices,
walls, dams, sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices to
be constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work, together with a map
showing drainage areas, the complete drainage network, including outfall lines
and natural drainageways which may be affected by the proposed development,
and the estimated run-off of the area served by the drains;
EXHIBIT A Page-4-
1-6
(g) . A schedule showing when each stage of the project will be completed, including
the total area of soil surface which is to be disturbed during each stage, and
estimated starting and completion dates; the schedule shall be drawn up to limit
to the shortest possible period the time that soil is exposed and unprotected. In
no event shall the existing "natural" vegetative ground cover be destroyed,
removed, or disturbed more than 15 days prior to grading or construction of
required improvements. Within 15 days of grading or other pre-development
activity that removes or significantly disturbs ground cover vegetation, exposed
soil shall either be built upon (i.e., covered with gravel, a slab foundation or
other construction), landscaped (i.e., seeded or planted with ground cover) or
otherwise protected; and
(h) The Grading Plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer.
(3) Vegetation and Re-vegetation Report. This report shall be in' accordance with Section
38.030(2) of this Code if tree felling is proposed.
(4) ,Verification of Slope and Grade Percentages. Prior to acceptance of the Final Plat, all
streets shall be cross-sectioned and their center-lines staked in the field, to determine the
accuracy of preliminary slope and grade percentages. If there are significant differences
between preliminary and final grade and slope determinations, i.e., density or street
gradients exceed the limits set forth in this Article, the Tentative Plan shall be modified
to reflect the revised information and resubmitted.
(5) . Development Plan Report. A proposed development plan shall be submitted, depicting
building envelopes for each lot, including driveway approaches and all other associated
impervious surface areas. The applicant shall specify whether trees will be felled
under one Tree Felling Permit, in accordance with Article 38 of this Code, as part of the
subdivision construction process or by separate Tree Felling Permit for each individual
lot prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The plan shall be based upon the findings
of the required reports in this Section and the lot coverage standards of Section 16.040.
Building envelopes shall be specified in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
recorded with the Subdivision Plat."
EXHIBIT A Page -5-
1-7
City Of Springfield
Development Services Department
June 25, 2007
Staff Report
Applicant:
Journal No.
City of Springfield LRP2006-0003 T
Request: ProcedureType:
To make text amendments to the Springfield Development Code, Type IV -- Legislative
Articles 26-Hillside Development Overlay District. Tbe purpose is
to extend the ability to locate cluster development on all qualified
hillsides with slopes of 15-25%. Article 26 currently allows cluster
development on slopes between 15-25% on south-facing slopes only.
Attachments:
Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Changes to Articles 26 in Legislative Format.
Attachment 3: Background-Hillside Development Overlay District
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Order
I. Executive Summary
The proposed amendments to Article 26-Hillside Development Overlay District (HDOD) are
intended to: I) extend the ability to locate cluster development to all-facing hillsides with slopes
of between 15 and 25%; 2) adjust the formula for computing the number of units for density
transfers; and 3) to require developers to pay for peer review of sophisticated geotechnical and
engineering studies required for hillside development.
The practice of cluster development on slopes between 15 and 25% is already allowed by Article
26 on south-facing hillsides. The proposed amendments would allow that practice to be
extended to all-facing hillsides between 15 and 25%, where such a development is deemed to be
safe through a review process that includes a rigorous geo-technical analysis.
The proposed amendments to the HDOD relate to inquiries that have been made by area
developers and the larger issue of Springfield's remaining vacant buildable residential land.
Table I-Vacant and Buildable Lands by Slope was produced by Lane Council of Goveriunents
for the Homebuilders Association of Lane County in 2005 as part of a larger report. The table
shows that about 48% of Springfield's remaining land zoned for low density residential
development is located on slopes of 15% or more.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25. 2007
1
1-8
Table 1. Vacant Buildable Land in Springfield by Slope
i:.p....<.e. t.centage:OC.'.
~;tot~lLDRL
Total LDR
1145..5
446.9
615.3
2207.7
51.9%
20.2%
27.9%
With almost half of Springfield's remaining single-family residential inventory located on slopes
affected by the HDOD, a review of the standards is appropriate as new development is poised to
impact these lands. Cluster development is a tool which is designed to help communities to
protect natural resource areas from development while allowing property owners to "transfer"
some of the development density that they are losing to another, less sensitive site.
Article 26 allows development on steep slopes, but requires large lots. Generally, larger lot sizes
mean lower development density. Article 26 makes provisions for density transfers (cluster
development) in areas affected by slopes. The idea is to credit developers for not developing on
steep slopes by allowing them to increase the density of development on land with lesser slope.
The developer must agree to protect the steeper slopes from any future development to be
allowed the increased density (density transfer).
Clustering of residential density from preserved hillsides is illustrated above.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25,2007
2
1-9
Section 26.050 of Article 26 describes two options for development on sl~pes that affect density.
Option "A" requires increasingly larger lots for homes on increasingly steeper slopes. Option
"B" allows for a transfer of density from steep areas to lesser slopes to achieve higher
development density. Development density is capped at 8 dwelling units per acre, which is less
than the I 0 units per acre allowed within the LDR zone.
Under Option B density transfer can be made to land with slopes up to 15%. Density transfers
may be made to slopes up to 25% on south-facing slopes. No rationale is offered for allowing
density transfers on steeper south facing slopes and not on other slopes. A staff review of the
legislative history of Article 26 failed to reveal the reason for the limitation.
Through a series of meetings between public works engineering, environmental services, and
planning staff, no specific reason could be identified for limiting cluster development on 15-25%
. slopes to just south-facing hillsides. The critical issue that was identified was the need to
con1uct a thorough geotechnical review of each site to determine if the area is stable enough
support increased development. The same concern for requiring a rigorous geotechnical review
was promoted by private practice engineers and a developer who were interviewed. The private
practice engineer further suggested that developers be required to fund a "peer review" of the
geotechnical report for a property (at the discretion of the City) to verify the accuracy of the
findings and recommendations of report.
The specific text of the amendments are scattered throughout Article 26. Please see Attachment
1 to examine the proposed changes in legislative format that show the existing text and highlight
changes.
II. Procedural Requirements
Procedural requirements for amending the Springfield DevelopmentCode (SDC) are described
in Article 8 and Article 14.
Article 8 indicates that the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Councilor a resident
of the City can initiate amendments to the SDC. . Such amendments of are reviewed under a
"Type IV" procedure and require public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City
Council. Type IV procedures are detailed in Article 3.100 of the SDC. The proposed revisions
to Articles 26 have been initiated by the Planning Director.
Article 14.030 (2) requires that legislative land use decisions be advertised in a newspaper of
general circulation, providing infonnation about the legislative action and the time, place and
location of the hearing. '
Findings:
# I. The Planning Director has initiated these amendments to Article 26-Hillside
Development Overlay District. The amendments are not site specific and fall under the
definition of a legislative action.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
3
1-10
#2. A "DLCD Notice Proposed Amendment" was mailed to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on December 19, 2007, alerting the agency to the City's
intent to amend the Article 26. The notice was mailed more than 45 days in advance of
the first evidentiary hearing as required by ORS 197.610. No comment has been
received from the Department concerning the amendments.
#3. Notice of the public hearing concerning this matter was published on June 11,2007 in the
Eugene Register Guard, advertising the hearing before the Springfield City Council on
July 2, 2007. The content ofthe notice followed the direction given in Section 14.030 (2)
of the SDC for legislative actions.
Conclusion:
Procedural requirements described in Article 8 and Article 14 ofthe SDC have been followed.
Notice requirements established by DLCD for amending the Development Code have also been
followed.
IV. Decision Criteria and Findings
Article 8 describes the criteria to be used in approving an amendment to the SDC. It states that
in reaching a decision, the Planning Commission and the City Council must adopt findings
which demonstrate conformance with "1) the Metro Plan; 2) applicable State statutes; and to 3)
applicable State:..wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. "
Criterion #1 "Conformance with the Metro Plan"
Findings
#4. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the basic
guiding land use policy docuIl1-ent for the City of Springfield. A text search related to
development on steep slopes and hillside development yielded little specific policy.
#5. Steep slopes are recognized as a development constraint for residential lands by findings
made in Section A-Residential Element (pg. III-A-2).
#6. Section E-Environmental Design Element, Policy E.8 states, "Site planning standards
developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in design that will achieve site
planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems" (pg. III-E-
3).
#7. The Springfield Development Code (SDC) implements the Metro Plan. It contains
various planning policies and standards including Article 26-Hillside Development
Overlay District which sets forth standards for development on hillsides with a slope of
15% and greater. When the Springfield Development Code was adopted in May 1986, it
was found by the City Council to be consistent with the Metro Plan. The Development
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
4
1-11
Code was subsequently acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission as being consistent with the Metro Plan and with Statewide Plaiming Goals.
#8. Section 26.010 of the Hillside Development Overlay District makes the following
purpose statement:
"The HD Overlay District ensures that development in hillside areas:
Minimizes the potential for earth movement and resultant hazards to life and
property;
Protects water quality by minimizing soil erosion and siltation;
Retains and protects natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways,
scenic quality and open space by minimizing vegetation removal in sloped areas;
Assure compatibility with new development with surrounding areas;
Encourages site and building design that is consistent with the natural topography
in order to minimize the cost of public infrastructure;
Provides for adequate access for emergency services and protects the public
health and safety."
#9. The proposed amendments provides for cluster development on hillsides with a slope
between 15 and 25% with certain standards and prior analysis meant to ensure that such
development meets the purposes listed in Finding #8. Such cluster development is
currently allowed on south-facing as described in Section 26. 050, "Option B." The.
amendments would extend cluster development to all-facing hillsides with 15-25% slope.
The same standards for geotechnical reporting and other planning and engineering
analysis remain in place.
#10. Cluster development isa widely recognized tool for addressing site design problems
while achieving the objective 'of making the best use of land of inventoried residential
land on constrained sites while protecting valuable natural areas. The amendments
clarify and facilitate the greater use of cluster development, consistent with the Metro
Plan policies cited in Findings #5 and #6.
Conclusion
The findings show that the proposed amendments facilitate Metro Plan policies and are
ronsistent with those few policies related to hillside development found in the Metro Plan.
The proposed amendments to Article 26, based on the findings included above, are consistent
with the Metro Plan. It is the conclusion of staff that the proposed amendments comply with this
criterion.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
5
1-12
Criterion #2 "Conformance with Applicable State Statutes"
Finding
#11. A text search ofthe Oregon Revised Statutes yielded no references to hillside
development or development on steep slopes that prevent or limit their location as a land
use policy. The statutes authorized the establishment of Oregon's Statewide Planning
Goals which include Goal 7-Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards.
Conclusion
- The Oregon Revised Statutes appear to be silent on the specifics of hillside
development policy. The statutes do address hillside development issues through
Statewide Planning Goal 7 which is discussed below under Criterion #3.
For lack of a prohibition against it, hillside development and cluster development are
presumed to be allowable development forms. This action clarifies how cluster
development on hillsides may be accomplished in a safe manner that is sensitive to
multiple community purposes.
The proposed amendments to Articles 26, based on the findings included above, are consistent
with applicable state statutes. It is the conclusion of staff that the proposed amendments comply
with this criterion.
Criterion #3 "Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules"
Findings
Compliance with Administrative Rules
#12. A text search of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) yielded no references to
specific policies related to hillside development or cluster development. OAR Division
15 describes Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 7-Areas Subject to Natural
Hazards is among the Goal listed.
#13. Statewide Planning Goal 7 states that "Local governments shall adopt comprehensive
plans (inventories, policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and
property from natural hazards. Among these hazards are "landslides."
#14. The standards found in Article 26 are intended to protect the community from
landslides and related hazards caused by improper development of slopes. The proposed
amendments embrace the existing standards while allowing the extension of cluster
development to all-facing slopes and not just south facing slopes.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25,2007
6
1-13
#15. The proposed amendments include strengthen provisions for emergency access and
water lines in hillside areas and precludes the finalizing of plats or sale of lots before such
facilities have been tested and approved by the Fire Marshal.
Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
#16. Goal] - Citizen Involvement. Goal I calls for "the 'opportunity for citizens to be
involved in all phases of the planning process."
The proposed amendments to Article 26 were the subject oflegislative public hearings
advertised in the Eugene Register Guard on January 26,2007. The Planning Commission
is conducted a public hearing on February 6, 2007. The Commission continued the
hearing twice to include March 13 and April 17, 2007. The City Council is scheduled to
hold a public hearing on July 2, 2007.
#17. Goal 2 -Land Use Planning. Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's
statewide planning program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance
with a comprehensive plan, and that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the
plan's policies into effect must be adopted.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the
acknowledged comprehensive plan that guides land use planning in Springfield. Various
adopted refinement plans and specific area plans provide more detailed direction for
planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan. The SDC implements the policies and
direction of the Metro Plan. The proposed amendments to Articles 26 will modify
existing standards for development that implement adopted policies found in the Metro
Plan as cited in Findings #8-#10 above.
#18. Goal 3 -Agricultural Land. Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands." It then requires
counties to inventory such lands and to "preserve and maintain" them through farm
zomng.
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any agricultural zoning districts. These amendments do
not apply outside the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on commercial
and industrial development without full urban services, generally do not apply outside the
city limits. All land in the City's urban transition area carries City zoning. An exception
to this goal was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was acknowledged.
# 19. Goal 4 - Forest Land. This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory
them and adopt policies and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses."
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any forest zoning districts. These amendments do not
apply outside the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on commercial and
industrial development without full urban services, generally do not apply outside the city
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
7
1-14
limits. All land in the City's urban transition area carries City zoning. An exception to
this goal was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was acknowledged.
#20. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natura/Resources. Goal 5
covers more than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and
wetlands. It establishes a process for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated.
The amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy
or Development Code regulations with respect to any identified natural resources. No
changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 5 are
affected by these amendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. This goal requires'local
comprehensive plans and implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal
regulations on matters such as groundwater pollution. The amendments to Article 26 do
not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or Development Code regulations
with respect to any identified air, water or land resource issues. No changes to
supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 6 are affected
by these amendments.
#21. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 deals with
development in places subject to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires
that jurisdictions apply "appropriate safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when
planning for development there.
All sites within Springfield that are subject to these hazards (floodplain, erosion,
landslides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a variety of
sources. The proposed amendments do not remove or exempt compliance with other
Code standards that may apply to development. .
The standards found in Article 26 are intended to protect the community from landslides
and related hazards caused by improper development of slopes. The proposed
amendments embrace the existing standards while allowing the extension of cluster
development to all-facing slopes and not just south facing slopes.
The proposed amendments include strengthen provisions for emergency access and water
lines in hillside areas and precludes the finalizing of plats or sale of lots before such
facilities have been tested and approved by the Fire Marshal.
#22. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas
and facilities for recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for
them. Willamalane Park and Recreation District is the entity responsible for park
planning, development and maintenance in the urban transition area as well as the city
limits. The proposed amendments to do not alter policies encouraging the provision of
recreational facilities or the incorporation of community open space in development
design. Expanding the opportunity to apply density transfer holds the possibility of
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
8
1-15
preserving property in the hills that might be acquired by the Willamalane Park and
Recreation District.
#23. Goal 9 - Economic Development. Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of .
the economy. It asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project
future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. The
amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or
Development Code regulations with respect to any economic development issues. No
changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 9 are
affected by these amendments.
#24. Goal]O - Housing. This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate
needed housing types, such as multifamily and manufactured housing. The amendments
to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or Development
Code regulations with respect to any housing issues. No changes to supporting
ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal' I 0 are affected by these
amendments.
The proposed amendments may encourage more efficient development of residential land
located on hillsides by facilitating cluster development as a means of increasing
development density while protecting sensitive natural areas.
#25. Goal]] - Public Facilities and Services. Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public
services such as sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Services and Facilities Plan (PFSP) is a
refinement plan of the Metro Plan that guides the provision of public infrastructure,
including water, sewer, stonn water management, and electricity. The amendments to
Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or Development
Code regulations with respect to any public facilities. No changes to supporting
ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 11 are affected by these
amendments.
The proposed amendments include strengthen provisions for emergency access and water
lines in hillside areas and precludes the finalizing of plats or sale of lots before such
facilities have been tested and approved by the Fire Marshal.
#26. Goal]2 - Transportation. The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system."
Section 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rules requires evaluation of a
comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendment to determine if an amendment to
the Springfield Development Code significantly affects a transportation facility. The
proposed amendments do not: change the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility; change standards implementing a functional classification
system; allow types ofleve1s of use which would result in levels of travel or access which
are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or reduce the
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
9
1-16
level of service of a facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the
Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan).
#27. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation. Goal 13 declares that "land and uses developed on the
land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of
energy, based upon sound economic principles."
The amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy
or Development Code regulations with respect to energy conservation. No changes to
supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 13 are affected
by these amendments.
#28. Goal 14 - Urbanization. This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs
for land and then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
The amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void-existing Metro Plan policy
or Development Code regulations with respect to Springfield's inventory ofbuildable
lands. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with
Goal 14 are affected by these amendments.
The proposed amendments may increase the viable use oflands within the UGB that are
currently shown on the residential land inventory that are constrained by steep slopes.
Cluster development has been used effectively in some communities to safely develop
some hillside areas, without undue loss of property value for land owners, while
preserving steeper areas as community open space.
#29. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 sets forth procedures for administering
the 300 miles of greenway that protects the Willamette River.
The proposed amendments to Articles 26 do not change the obligation to comply with the
City's existing standards for development with respect to the Willamette River
Greenway. The Greenway provisions allow development of permitted uses in the
underlying zone, provided that all other Greenway requirements are satisfied. The City's
adopted, acknowledged Greenway ordinance will not be changed.
#30. Goals 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and
Dunes, and Ocean Resources. There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune
resources within the City's jurisdiction. These goals do not apply in Springfield.
Conclusion
The proposed amendments to Articles 26, based on the findings included above, are consistent
with Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. It is the conclusion
of staff that the proposed amendments comply with this criterion.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25,2007
10
1-17
v. Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
Based on the findings of staff with respect to the criteria defined in Article 8 for approving
amendments to the SDC, staff finds the proposed amendments to Articles 26 to be consistent
with these criteria and recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
11
1-18
Planning Commission Minutes
ATTACHMENT
2-1
Attachment 2
Minutes approved by the Springfield
Planning Commission: May 15, 2007
MINUTES
Springfield Planning Commission
Regular Session
Springfield City Hall-City Council Chamber
225 Fifth Street, Springfield
April 17, 2006
7 p.m.
PRESENT: Frank Cross, Chair; Steve Moe, Gail Decker, Lee Beyer, David Cole, Bill Carpenter, Johnny
Kirschenmann, members; Greg Mott, Mark Metzger, Gary Karp, Gary McKenney, Brenda Jones,
.. Springfield staff; Joe Leahy, City Attorney.
Commissioner Cross called the meeting to order.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Moe, moved to approve the minutes of March 27,
2007. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cross reordered the agenda and moved item 3, Report o(Council Action, to the end of
the meeting.
4. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Commissioner Cross determined there were no items from the audience.
5. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS
Commissioner Cross opened the public hearing, a continuation from a hearing on March 27,2007.
Mr. Mott reminded the commission that it held the record open for a period of time following the March
27 hearing and no new testimony would be accepted tonight. However, the commission could ask
questions regarding the testimony submitted. He said the commission's role in regard to the plan
amendment was advisory, and the criteria governing its decision could be found in Section 7.070 ofthe
Springfield Development Code (SDC). The criteria for zone changes were found in SDC Section
12.030.
Commissioner Caipenter indicated that he had been unable to attend the March 27 hearing but had
reviewed the draft minutes and the materials provided to the commission at that time and believed he
was qualified to participate in the commission's vote. He had no ex parte contacts or conflicts of
interest in regard to the matter.
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Work Session
April 17, 2007
Page I
2-2
Mr. Karp entered the staff report, dated April 17, 2007, into the record. In addition to the
correspondence in the staff report, the commission had received correspondence that arrived after the
deadline, which would be added to the record for the May 7 public hearing before the City Council.
Mr. Karp said that on April 16 the City Council opened a public hearing on the matter; no testimony was
presented at that time, and the council continued the hearing until May 7.
Mr. Karp recommended approval of the proposed Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan
Diagram ~d Springfield Zoning Map amendments as conditioned, based on the findings attached to the
staff report and additional staff information. He requested the commission to advise the City Council by
motion and signature to the attached order by the commission chair to recommend approval of the
amendments as conditioned at the public hearing on May 7, 2007.
Mr. Karj> invited questions.
Commissioner Carpenter questioned the number of stud~,nts projected to come from the site at build out.
Mr. Leahy clarified that the six students mentioned was the difference of students expected between
build out as the site currently zoned and build out under the proposaL, Commissioner Carpenter asked if
the medium-density residential (MDR) acreage had changed. Mr. Karp said the acreage was changing
and the build out was proposed at 12 units per acre rather than 20 units per acre. Commissioner
Carpenter said "here we're telling them not to do dense housing?" Mr. Karp said the area was a
potential node and that triggered a minimum of 12 dwelling units per acre in the MDR zone, which was
what the developer intended to build. Higher densities would have more transportation impacts.
Commissioner Cross determined from Mr. Karp that the trip cap would be recorded with the property, so
any time someone sought to change a part of the approved master plan they would have to submit
another TIA and go through the process again. rfthe application was not approved and the applicant
decided to sell the property to another party, because of its location that individual would also have to go
through the master plan review process to develop the site, at least for the MDR portion of the site. Mr.
Karp confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Commissioner Cross, that the City would be
able to maintain the 12 unit per acre cap.
Commissioner Carpenter said the materials suggested that one reason the commission would not
recommend approval of the application was because the site was "development-ready industrial land."
He asked what it meant for the site to be "development-ready." Mr. Karp said the site was currently
zoned campus industrial and had an approved conceptual development plan. Commissioner Carpenter
said the reason he asked was because he did not know of other industrial areas in Springfield that were
not "development-ready" and wanted to know why the "catch phrase" was so important to this piece of
property~ Mr. Mort said the State placed a priority on what it referred to as "development-ready"
industrial sites, which do not require annexation or additional processes other than local review of the
development, and which had services in place. Sites with multiple ownerships, fragmented
parcelization, underutilization in terms of how developed, or that had services available only to some
parts of the site were not considered "development-:-ready."
Commissioner Carpenter asked if the City maintained an inventory independent of the Buildable and
Industrial Lands Study regarding such "development-ready" lands. Mr. Mott responded that economic
development manager John Tamulonis had some information about such lands but the City's inventory
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Wark Session
April 17, 2007
Page 2
2-3
was what was' .contained in its Geographic Information System (GIS) system. The inventory contained
raw data that allowed the City to identify sites suitable for industrial development and it included a
number of site attributes that further defined either the site's suitability or its shortcomings.
Commissioner Carpenter confirmed with Mr. Mott that the City was periodically instructed by the State
to update its lands inventory to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land consistent with projected
population and employment figures. The State would accept a variety of different categories and status
of buildable lands; for example, the City could include redevelopment in its buildable lands inventory.
The land was not necessarily vacant. The law dictated how frequently that review occurred. Mr. Mott
confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Commissioner Carpenter, that the inventory was
always a "snapshot in time."
Commissioner Cross asked if the City still had a 20-year supply if the site was removed from the
inventory. Mr. Mott deferred tlie question to the applicant, who had prepared the materials before the
commission. He noted that the applicant made reference to the 1993 Industrial Lands Policy Report, and
recalled that the City's periodic review notice of 1995 did not require a review of industrial lands.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Mott acknowledged the current Commercial
and Industrial, Buildable Lands Study undertaken at the behest of the three local jurisdictions CIBL,
which primarily focused on the lack of accuracy in local data bases as opposed to answering the
supply/demand question. There was no intent in that study to project if the area needed more land; what
was funded only went so far as to state that if the community wanted the ability to monitor the status of
the inventory annually, a more accurate data base was needed. The report was presented to the elected
officials in June 2006. The Springfield council had wanted to proceed and learn if the area had sufficient
industrial land and staff had projected the costs of the study, which might be funded in fiscal year 2008.
. Commissioner Beyer recalled that Mr. Tamulonis had indicated to the council that there was very little
industrial land left in the Gateway area, and that the largest site not in the flood plan was 12 acres. Mr.
Karp said that the area contained about 100 acres. Commissioner Beyer observed that much of the site
was in the floodplain and was not buildable. Mr. Mott indicated the City's standards for development in
the floodplain differentiated between residential and nonresidential uses. While the City had received no
development proposals for the acreage Commissioner Beyer mentioned to react to, based on the City
Council's direction he believed such development could occur if it met federal requirements for
development in a floodplain. Commissioner Beyer thought a part of the site might be adequate for
parking but questioned how much was left. Mr. Tamulonis said he discussed potential opportunities for
that site with several businesses who had envisioned parking in the floodway. That site was about six to
eight acres, there was a twelve-acre parcel adjacent to it almost entirely in the floodway, and there was
an approximately 60-acre site to the east of Deadmond Ferry Road that had about 50 acres in the
floodway and 8 acres in the floo,dplain.
Commissioner Beyer said there may be 100 acres at Gateway but it was severely restricted and was in
small parcels.
Mr. Tamulonis said when first joined the City he had thought the Pierce Property would develop rapidly
because it was in a single ownership. Since then he had brought potential clients to the owner, who had
been reluctant to accept some of the proposals, and later it became complicated because of the sewer line
location and the location of the ditch, which were wrong for most large developments. Over time,
businesses had become choosier as to where they located, and the site was near Kingsford Charcoal and
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Work Session
April 17, 2007
Page 3
2-4
dust particles 'and the odor from the hog fuel pile was an issue for some potential clients. In addition,
residential densities were high if.1 the area and many industrial uses did not want to locate near residential
areas.
Commissioner Carpenter asked about the Scottsdale, Arizona, development referenced in the staff notes.
Mr. Karp said that a Springfield staff person had visited the store in Scottsdale and seen design elements
that staff would like to see in Springfield as well. The conditions spoke to ensuring that those design
elements were included in the development. Commissioner Carpenter asked if those elements were
reflected in the packet provided by the application. Mr. Karp said that it was somewhat similar. The
point was to avoid a typical big box design with exterior architectural features.
Commissioner Carpenter was confused by the amount of land to be in nodal development. Mr. Karp
said the only area that would not be nodal was the area zoned Community Commercial for a total of 19.6
acres. The applicant indicated that a total of80.7 acres were to have the nodal overlay designation, and a
portion of the 80acres was mixed-use commercial.
Commissioner Carpenter asked where the conditions were referenced in the proposed order. Mr. Karp
said the original staff report include.d those conditions, and if the commission wanted to include the
specific conditions in the order it could be revised to include the conditions before it was signed by the
chair. Commissioner Carpenter maintained that in order to impose the conditions the City must have
them in the order or reference them in the order.
Commissioner Decker requested better maps that showed the underlying rezoning.
Commissioner Cross asked about the current status of the City's industrial lands inventory and the
accuracy of the numbers shared with the coinmis~ion. Mr. Karp said the commission's decision can only
address the acknowledged inventory, which was from 1993. The information in one-half of the table
included on page 3-7 was drawn from that inventory. The other half of the table was based on 2004
information that was anecdotal. He noted that the 1993 study did not project demand; it only
documented inventory, so no one could state with authority that the area lacked supply or had a surplus.
He confirmed, in response to a question from Commissioner Beyer, that the 1993 information did not
account for the removal of industrial land developed since that time.
Commissioner Cross closed the public hearing and called for commission discussion.
Commissioner Beyer thought the applicant had prepared a pretty good plan. He acknowledged the
commission was not considering the site plan. He said t~at living close to the site he would like to have
a Lowe's store. However, he thought the commission was down to one of choices, that of moving a
campus industrial site into a commercial use, and while he liked that he had two concerns. One was the
inventory of industrial lands. Commissioner Beyer said as a member of the commission in the early
1980s, he had pushed for the designation of the parcel and had worked through the years to site a use on
it. He said the local area was constrained by its limit of flat land, and it was hard to site industrial
facilities on anything other than flat land. The site in question was one of the last such properties in
Springfield. He wanted to maintain the job opportunities resulting from campus industrial and was
reluctant to see that go.
. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Work Session
, April 17 , 2007
Page 4
2-5
Commissioner Beyer said a second concern was based on the possibility that the development would
work against redevelopment in the Mohawk area. Commissioner Beyer said the commission was
looking at a reasonable development plan but for him the question was what the cOnllnunity would give
up. He did not want to give up the opportunity for job creation from the campus industrial zoning and
thought at this time the proposal was not a good trade.
Commissioner Decker agreed with Commissioner Beyer about the lost job opportunities from rezoning
the property, and questioned whether the employees of Lowe's would be able to buy the houses that
would be built in the node. However, she thought the lack of interest in developing the property as a
campus industrial site suggested that it might notbe the best location for that zoning. She said
Kingsford was a good community member but she did not think it mixed well with a campus industrial
site or business park. For her the question became the existing supply ofMDR land and whether the
City should enlarge the small amount of commercial zoning now at the site. Commissioner Decker
believed the community needed more commercially zoned land and the proposal met that need. She
,supported the staff recommendation to change the zoning.
Commissioner Cole said he had long been opposed to the loss of industrial lands. Large industrial sites
were hard to come by once lost. The site in question was one of the cpmmunity's last large greenfield
sites. Any similarly sized site was going to be a brownfield site. As much as he liked the development
proposal, he had reservations about giving up the industrial zoning.
Commissioner Moe supported the proposal. He said the site had been on the market for a long time, and
in that time those contemplating lands with such zoning had become much more picky. He thought the
site presented less of an opportunity now than it had in the past. Commissioner Moe thought it would
remain unsold if kept in its present zoning. He thought the proposal was good. Commissioner Moe
reminded the commission that it was not talking about a specific user but rather the zoning on the site.
Commissioner Cole concurred witp Commissioner Moe regarding the fact the commission was dealing
with zoning. He said he would like to see thersite development, but was reluctant to give up the
industrial zoning.
Commissioner Decker questioned the point of having the site remain in industrial zoning if no one
wanted it for that purpose.
Commissioner Kirschenmann thanked Mr.. Karp for his work in responding to the questions of the public
and the commission. He wanted to keep in mind what was best for the City while maintaining an
adequate supply of industrial lands. He thought that so~ewhat up in the air given the uncertainty of the
supply. Commissioner Kirschenmann supported the staff recommendation. .
Commissioner Carpenter speculated that the owner of the property purchased it for the purpose of
development but had been unable to do so. He said the site was not a wildlife habitat and was zoned for
development. He thought it unfortunate but said that industry was not what it had been 25 'years ago. He
. said that the users of campus industrial land, such as Sony, were dynamic and here today and gone
tomorrow. The site in question was not heavy industrial land but zoned to hold a number of small start-
up type businesses. He said the site was encumbered by a ditch and pipe line and he did not see that it
could be developed as originally envisioned. Commissioner Carpenter did not object to the loss of the
zoning and suggested that the brownfields that remained to be developed might be more appropriately
located near other industrial uses.
. MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Work Session
April 17, -2007
Page 5
2-6
Commissioner Carpenter acknowledged the concern expressed by the neighbors in regard to the
proximity ofMDR zoning but thought the development could be a positive community asset. He did not
think it would detract from the redevelopment of Mohawk, suggesting that it might bring more
customers to the area due to the residential growth that would occur.
Commissioner Carpenter endorsed the current conditions and recommended an additional condition that
placed a two-year time limit on master plan approval, with the zoning to revert to campus industrial if
that did not occur, and a condition that tied the construction of the Community Commercial development
to the residential element of the node. He asked if staff believed the existing conditions were sufficiently
strong to ensure that occurred.
Commissioner Decker expressed that she could not support those conditions.
Joe Leahy asked that if Carpenter has the votes to add the additional condition, staff would take a look at
the additional condition between now and the City Council me'eting to see if this is an enforceable
condition, so staff doesn't have to come back to the Planning Commission. Carpenter agreed and
expressed that he may not have the votes need to add the conditions.~ommissioner Beyer asked Joe
Leahy if this would create a Ballot Measure 37 claim. Joe Leahy responded that it may.
Commissioner Cross has a great deal of reservation about giving up Campus Industrial Land. He also
see's that this property has sat vacant for many years. He is in favor ofthis application, but with
reservation.
Commissioner Cross asked for a motion.
Commissioner Carpenter moved that the Planning Commission approve the numbers with the added
conditions to the order that is signed and add a condition 14 that reads "if a master plan is not
approved within two years from the date of approved zoning amendments, that the zoning revert back
with the condition that the City Attorney would look at the provision as a condition that can be
enforced".
Joe Leahy responded that this would be a difficult condition, because the owners could get into a
situation, where they could in good faith submit a master plan, and appeals would go beyond two years.
Carpenter amended his motion, "The applicant has to submit a master plan within a year of the date
of the approved zoning change". Commissioner Moe seconded the motion. Commissioner Cross
askedfor discussion of the motion. .
19
Commissioner Moe responded that he doesn't have any problems with the stipulation, because the
owners will do the master plan anyway. Commissioner Decker responded that the owners have spent a
lot of money on the property, and market forces are going to push them forward, why do we need to hit
them over the head with a second condition. It's redundancy that is not necessary. Commissioner Moe
will support the motion as is.
Commissioner Cross askedfor the vote 5:2:0. Motion approved.
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Work Session
April I 7, 2007
Page 6
2-7
Commissioner Beyer believes that this is a good proposal; his only objection is to the site location
Commissioner Cross closes the quasi-judicial hearing.
6. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Cross opened the public hearing, a continuation from a hearing on March 13,2007.
Proposed Amendments to Article 26 of the Springfield Development Code.
TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC
Bruce Jones, 88740 Erma Bee Road; Springfield, Oregon 97478
On behalf of Roy Carver, and the residential property commonly knoWn as "Heritage Park". Mr. Carver
is out of town and asked Mr. Jones to deliver a brief message. Mr. Carver supports current changes to
Article 26 of the Springfield Development Code with Oll,e exception. This change occurs in the second
to last paragraph of article 26.050 (1) currently reads, "As provided in article 16". Mr. Carver asked that
the language be changed to read, "As provided for in article 16.010". ,Purpose of this change is to
provide clarity to Article 26.050(1) as it references article 16 and the number of dwelling units permitted
per developable acre. Thank You.
COIhmissioner Cross asked Mr. Jones to site the articles again. Mr. Jones did so.
Commissioner Carpenter replied that staff presented the commission with something that read, that
section 16.010(1). Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Jones ifthis was a problem. Mr. Jones replied,
"No". The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Jones for his testimony.
Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger reiterated that our purpose originally was to allow for transfer of
density to all points of the compass, in hillside development areas between 15% and 25%. The City
believes that they have accomplished this in the amendments. But in addition, that there were a number
of adjustments that have been recommended to the Planning Commission as discussed in the work
session earlier tonight. Those recommendations are in your packet in a Legislative Format. These are
the amendments which retain the cities ability to apply the Hillside Development Ordinance anywhere
the actual slope is above 15%. The City is allowing average slope, the formula for average slope is
defined in the code, for use in computing how many dwelling units can go in a development area. These
changes were submitted at the March 13,2007 meeting. Mark responded that Mr. Jones pointed out
additional changes that were mailed to the Planning Commission. The City concurs with the changes.
Mr. Metzger asked the Planning Commission if they needed these changes read again, or if they would
accept the e-mail.
Mr. Metzger closed with the recornrnendation of Article 26; staff believes that they have preserved the
City's interest, by making reasonable compromises that is still in the cities interest. The mInor
adjustments that had been e-mailed to the Planning Commissioners, that makes some of the references
more specific.
Commission Cross asked for questions from the Planning Commissioners. There were none.
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission
Work Session
April 17, 2007
Page 7 .
2-8
Commissioner Cross closes the public hearing.
Commissioner Beyer responded that this is in true Springfield fashion, to make accommodations to staff
and Mr. Carver for going the extra step to come up with a proposal that meets both the City and
applicants objective. .
Commissioner Cross asked for anymore discussion. Commissioner Cross asked for a motion.
Commissioner Beyer moves that the Planning Commission adopt the staff proposed
recommendations as presented in Legislative form with the adjustments made. Commissioner Decker
seconded the motion. 7:0:0 Motion approved
3. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTION
Commissioner Cross reported that the City Council heard testimony regarding the Community
Development Block Grant, and Home Investment Partnership program recommendations where
discussed, and moved for funding. The Council moved to approve applications; Habitat for Humanity,
Shelter Care, Safe Haven Relief Nursery, and NEDCO is working on ~wo other homes. The last item
that has not been approved yet, is the Wynant's, proposes to bring there health food store downtown.
Council has asked that they provide more information for them to consider.
The Council also approved a one-year extension on the CDBGfunds for the downtown set-aside. They
recommended a denial of the liquor license for Club 1444.
Council also discussed and approved opening a discussion with Hyland Construction for the Justice
Center.
The County has agreed to handle the construction for the Bob Straub Parkway. To begin construction
July of2007 and to end September of2009. This project would include at least two inter-sections,
resurfacing, widening the roadway, and adding a conduit. The cost to the City would be a little over 1
million dollars. The County is committing 5.1 million.
7. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Development Services Director Bill Grile, added that at the end of the Council Meeting, the Mayor
commented that he and Councilor Ballew would be meeting April 17, 2007 with there Eugene and Lane
County counterparts to discuss issues with the Metro Plan and concerns that are not new to anybody,
about how Springfield is growing increasingly anxious about our ability to reach their land supply needs.
Commissioner Beyer asked who Lane Counties participants where. Mr. Grile responded Commissioner
Green, Sorenson.
Mr. Grile also reported that House Bill 3337 is Representative Beyer's bill, which addresses Land
Supply issues. A couple of weeks ago Mr. Grile and Mr. Mott went to Salem to testify on behalf of the
City, before the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Grile's perspectiye was there
was not much disagreement about the concern over whether Eugene should or shouldn't update there
Residential land Supply Inventory. There seemed to be a bit of angst about the provision in Section 3 of
the proposed bill, that would have Springfield/Eugene meet there inventory land supply needs on their
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission Apri117,2007 Page 8
Work Session
2-9
respective sides ofI-5 based on language in the Metro Plan, for the Cities being responsible for there
jurisdictional area's within the Metro Plan. The committee was expected to have a work session today.
The work session was postponed today, because there are some additional refining amendments that are
not at all inconsistent with what Springfield has been advocating for. That is the autonomies ability to
make decisions on this side ofI-5 that will meet the identified the needs that the Planning Commission
has discussed and the City Council has been increasingly vocal about. Mr. Grile anticipates that the
worksession will take place later this week or Tuesday of next week. The Chair of the committee is
representative, Arnie Roblen of Coos Bay. Mr. Grile spoke briefly with Mr. Roblen, who is confident
that this bill will pass out of the committee.
8. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Beyer responded that the Residential Lands Study Group met with Eco Northwest. Eco
. Northwest is doing the demand side; City staff is working on the supply side. It looks as if this will
make it to Planning Commission in the next couple of months. Early forecast looks like there is not
enough land. Commissioner Beyer is impressed with th,e work they are all doing.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if there were some new employees wi~h the City of Springfield from
Lane County. Staff responded that the new Assistant City Manger Jeff Towry, and Steve Hopkins is a
Planner II.
9. ADJOURN
Commissioner Cross adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
(Recorded by Brenda Jones. Minutes transcribed by Kim Young and Brenda Jones)
MINUTES-Springfield Planning Commission April 17, 2007
Work Session
2-10
Page 9
Attachment 3
Public Testimony and Correspondence
ATTACHMENT
3-1
l' a~1;; I VI I
JONES Brenda
From: METZGER Mark
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:31 AM
To: JONES Brenda
Subject: FW: Heritage Proposed Hillside Language Changes
Attachments: CDSpringfieldHillsideOverlayProposedCodeChanges070205.doc
Please print Mr. Carver's e-mail and attachment and include in the record of the proceedings.
From: RCarverIII@aol.com [mailto: RCarverIII@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, February 05,20077:35 PM
To: GRILE Bill
Ct: METZGER Mark
~bject: Heritage Proposed Hillside Language Changes
Bill,
I apologize for being unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing Tuesday evening.
Attached is a copy of the city's current Article 26 marked up by Heritage One LLC to show the additions and deletions we suggest
be made to make the article workable for hillside development. Would you please have our proposed language as well as this e-
mail entered into the record with the Planning Commission at its public hearing on this matter scheduled for Tuesday, February 7,
2007.
I have reviewed the most recent city proposed changes to Article 26 sent to me on Friday, February 2, 2007. Some of the
suggested language violates ORS 92, some of the suggested changes makes the article less workable than it is now, and some
of the suggested changes may have unintended negative consequences. For the Heritage, the most recent city proposed version
is unworkable.
I do believe our proposed version is the short, simple and appropriate "fix" to Article 26. We hope our proposed language will be
given serious consideration.
\
Sincerely,
Roy Carver, III
on behalf of Heritage One LLC
3-2
2/6/2007
ARTICLE 26
lID IllLLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
26.010 PURPOSE.
26.020 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE
26.030 APPLICABILITY
26.040 REVIEW
26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OPTIONS
26.060 STREET GRADE STANDARDS
26.070 REPORTS REQUIRED
26.080 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS
26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
26 -1
3-3
ARTICLE 26
DD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
26.010 PURPOSE.
The HD Overlay District ensures that development in hillside areas: Minimizes the potential for earth
movement and resultant hazards to life and property; protects water quality by minimizing soil erosion and
siltation; retains and protects natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways, scenic quality and
open space by minimizing vegetation removal in sloped areas; assures the compatibility of new development
with surrounding areas; encourages site and building design that is consistent with the natural topography in
order to minimize the cost of providing public infrastructure; provides for adequate access for emergency
services; and otherwise protects the public health and safety.
26.020 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.
26.030 APPLICABILITY.
The HD Overlay District shall apply in residential zoning districts within the ci1:}:limits and the City's
urbanizable to areas above 670 feet elevation or where the average percent of slope is 15 percent or
greater for the area below 670 feet in elevation.
26.040 REVIEW.
(1) Development within the HD Overlay District shall be reviewed under Type II procedure,
submitted concurrently with the applicable application for a: Site Plan Review, Property Line
Adjustment, or a Partition or Subdivision Tentative Plan.
(2) A complete application together with all required materials shall be submitted to the Director
prior to the revie.w of the request as specified in Section 3.050, ApplicatiOJl Submittal.
26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OPTIONS.
The developer has two options for the development of steeply sloped land. The first option, Option "A", is
designed to correlate minimum lot sizes to the average slope of the development area. The second option,
Option "B", is designed to allow for a density transfer bonus to stimulate development on those portions of
the development area where the slope ofthe land is less than 15 percent. A combination of Options "A" and
"B" may be used.
(1) OPTION "A" - AVERAGE SLOPE - MINIMUM LOT SIZE. The site development
requirements of the LDR District shall apply, with the exception of the minimum lot size and
duplex standards. Determination of minimum lot size where the slope is 15 percent or greater is
a 3 step process.
(a) Steo 'A_I' Determine the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is:
1. Less than 15 percent.
26 - 2
3-4
2. From 15 percent to 35 percent.
3. Greater than 35 percent.
Use the following fonnula to detennine the % of slope:
Vertical distance between contours = V x 100 = % slope
Horizontal distance between contours = H
Indicate the portions of the development area that are less than 15 percent; from
15 percent to 35 percent; and greater than 35 percent then use a planimeter to
detennine the land area of each category.
ill Steo 'A-2' Detennine the average slope of the portion of the development area where the
slope of land is from 15 percent to 35 percent by using the following fonnula:
S = 0.00229 I L
A
Where:
S = Average % of slope for the area where the slope ranges from 15 percent to 35
percent.
I = Contour interval. (Not greater than 10 feet).
L = Summation oflength of the contour lines within the area where the slope is from 15
percent to 35 percent.
A = Area in acres of the portion of the parcel where the slope is from 15 percent to 35
percent.
~ Step 'A-3' Detennine the minimum lot size for the portion ofthe development area
where the slope of the land is greater than 15% by using the following Table:
TABLE 26-1
AVERAGE SLOPE MINIMUM LOT SIZE PER MINIMUM FRONT AGE
. DWELLING UNIT PER LOT
Less than 15% ** 10,000 SQ. ft. 60 ft.
15% - 25% 10,000 SQ. Ft. 90 ft.
25% - 35% 20,000 sq. ft. 150 ft.
Over 35% 40,000 sq. ft. 200 ft.
26-3
"
3-5
Deleted: FRONTAGE
Formatted: Centered
* Panhandles are permitted only when requirements of this Section pertaining to fire protection and lot size
are met and the lot cannot be served with a public street. Minimum frontage standards for ail other lots may
be amended by the Director when it is found that the topography or location of natural features prevent
achieving the standard. Cui de sac frontages are as specified in Section 16.030.
** Wooded lots only
(1)
OPTION "B" DENSITY TRANSFER BONUS. In order to promote the preservation of natural
slopes greater than 15 percent, and encourage solar access, development density transfer is
encouraged when dividing land. The density transfer is only feasible where there are sizable
portions of the development area which have slopes less than "}) percent... Determination of
the density transfer bonus is a 4 step process:
(a) Step 'B-1' Determine the area of the parcel where the average slope of the land is:
1. Less than 15 percent.
2.
From 15 percent to 1) percent.
3. From 25 percent to 35 percent
4 Greater than ]) percent. .
..(b) Step 'B-2' Determine the average slope of the area ofthe parcel where the)lverage..slope
of the land is from 15 percent to 35 percent by using the formula identified in Option
A, Step 'A-2'.
19 Step 'B-3' Determine.the number of potential lots for the total development area which.
could have been permitted, for the portion of the parcel where the average slope is
greater than 15 percent, if the average slope option had been considered by using
Table 26-1 in Option "A", Step 'A-3'.
@
Step 'B-4' Multiply the number of potential lots by 1.2 to determine the density that may.
be transferred to those sections of the development area where the average slopes are less
than,25 percent.)i1 no case..shall the density of the developed portion ofthe site exceed 8
dwelling units per developable acre, (i.e., excluding streets and .open space). Land of
greater than"}) percent average slope subject to density transfer provisions shall be
maintained as permanent open space or dedicated for park use. Modification of standards
as stated in Section 26.070 of this Article may be applied to the entire development area.
26.060 STREET GRADE STANDARDS.
(1) Streets shall be contoured in hillside areas to minimize environmental and scenic disruption.
26 -4
3-6
Deleted: I
Deleted: or which have a south-facing
slopes of less than 15 percent
[ Deleted: 3 .
[ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
( Deleted: 3
Deleted: South-facing slopes 15 to 15
percent.'
Deleted: .
Deleted:
Deleted:
(Deleted: .
Deleted: 15 percent, or when the
average south-facing slope is between 15
and
(Deleted: .
~eted: .
[Deleted: I
(2) Street grades may exceed the 12 percent local street standard specified in Section 32.020, Street
Standards - Public only where topographical conditions make it impractical to meet the 12
percent standard, subject to the following cond!tions:
(a) Except for lots created prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Code, 1982, no
driveways or intersections shall be permitted where street grades exceed 12 percent.
(b) No street with a grade of 15 percent or greater shall be permitted for a distance of
more than 200 feet.
(c) In no case shall a street grade exceed 18 percent for any distance.
26.070 REPORTS REQUIRED.
Where the buildable portion of the land to be developed exceeds 15 percent average slope, the following
reports shall be required and their conclusions applied in order to prevent or mitigate possible hazards to life
and property and adverse impacts on the natural environment, consistent with the purpose of this Article.
(1) Geotechnical Report. This report shall include data regarding the geology of the site, the nature,
distribution, and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading
procedures, design criteria for corrective measures, and options and recommendations to
maintain soil and slope stability and minimize erosion of the site to be developed in a manner
imposing the minimum variance from the natural conditions. The investigation and report
shall be prepared by a civil engineer/geologist or a geotechnical engineer.
'--
(2) Grading Plan Report. This plan shall include the following information:
(a) Existing and proposed details and contours (five-foot intervals) of property;
(b) Details of terrain and area drainage;
(c) Location of any existing buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be
performed, the location of any existing buildings or structures on land of adjacent
owners which are within 100 feet of the property or which may be affected by the
proposed grading operations, and proposed or approximate locations of structures
relative to adjacent topography;
(d) The direction of drainage flow and the approximate grade of all streets with the final
determination to be made in accordance with Section 26.070(4) ofthis Article;
(e) Limiting dimensions, elevations, or finished contours to be achieved by the grading,
including all cut and fill slopes, proposed drainage channels, and related construction;
(t) Detailed plans and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, dams,
sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices to be constructed
with, or as a part of, the proposed work, together with a map showing drainage areas, the
26 - 5
3-7
complete drainage network, including outfall lines and natural drainageways which may
be affected by the proposed development, and the estimated nm-off of the area served by
the drains;
(g) A schedule showing when each stage of the project will be completed, including the total
area of soil surface which is to be disturbed during each stage, and estimated starting and
completion dates; the schedule shall be drawn up to limit to the shortest possible period
the time that soil is exposed and unprotected. In no event shall the existing "natural"
vegetative ground cover be destroyed, removed, or disturbed more than 15 days prior to
grading or construction of required improvements. Within 15 days of grading or other
pre-development activity that removes or significantly disturbs ground cover vegetation,
exposed soil shall either be built upon (Le., covered with gravel, a slab foundation or
other construction), landscaped (i.e., seeded or planted with ground cover) or otherwise
protected; and
(h) The Grading Plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer.
(3) Vegetation and Re-vegetation Report. This report shall be in accordance with Section 3 8.030(2)
of this Code if tree felling is proposed.'
(4) Verification of Slope and Grade Percentages. Prior to acceptance of the Final Plat, all streets
shall be cross-sectioned and their center-lines staked in the field, to determine the accuracy of
preliminary slope and grade percentages. Ifthere are significant differences between preliminary
and final grade and slope determinations, Le., density or street gradients exceed the limits set
forth in this Article, the Tentative Plan shall be modified to reflect the revised information and
resubmitted.
(5) Development Plan Report. A proposed development plan shall be submitted, depicting building
envelopes for each lot, including driveway approaches and all other associated impervious
surface areas. The applicant shall specify whether trees will be felled under one Tree Felling
Permit, in accordance with Article 38 ofthis Code, as part of the subdivision construction
process or by separate Tree Felling Permit for each individual lot prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit. The plan shall be based upon the findings of the required reports in this Section
and the lot coverage standards of Section 16.040. Building envelopes shall be specified in
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions recorded with the Subdivision Plat.
26.080 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS.
The Director may modify the standards of this Code, as they apply to the entire development area, within
the following prescribed limits:
(1) Front, side and rear yard setbacks may be reduced to zero (when in conformance with the
Building Safety Codes); provided, however, where attached dwellings are proposed there shall
not be more than 5 dwelling units in any group.
26- 6
3...;.8
(2) The reduction of public right of way, pavement width, and/or requirements for the installation
of sidewalks as specified in Table 32-1 of this Code, may be allowed if provisions are made to
provide off-street parking in addition to that required in Article 16, Residential Districts. The
Director may require combinations of collt~ctive private driveways, shared parking areas and
on-street parallel parking bays where topography, special traffic, building, grading, or other
circumstances necessitate additional regulation to minimize land and soil disturbance and
minimize impervious surface areas. .
(3) Height limitations may be removed, provided such additional height does not exceed 45 feet and
that solar access standards are met.
26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
Additional fire protection requirements may be required in hillside development areas which are considered
vegetated areas subject to wildfires as determined by the Fire Marshal.
(1) All buildings with a gross area in excess of 1,500 square feet shall be constructed within 50
feet of an approved fire lane or public street. Fire apparatus access shall be provided to within
50 feet of the building (This may mean modifYing the driveway designs for width, grade and
construction material in order to meet fire lane requirements). Installation of a residential fire
sprinkler system will be considered as an alternative to the requirement to be within 50 feet of
a fire lane or street.
(2) The developer shall specifY in the recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that a wildfire
defense plan for each lot, approved by the Fire Marshal, will be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
(3) AIl buildings located in or adjacent to vegetated areas subject to wildfires shall have a Class A or
B roofing in accordance with the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code.
(Ord. 5764 11/06/94): Sections 26.030; 26.050; 26.070; 26.090. .
(Ord. 580412/18/95): Section 26.050.
(Ord. 58493/17/97): Section 26.010.
(Ord. 6133 07/18/05): Sections 26.0 10,26.020,26.040,26.070, and 26.080. __
26 -7
3-9
Attachment 4
Work Session Follow-up: Slope/Angle Conversion and Hillside Construction
During the June 25th work session discussion of the proposed amendments to Article 26 (Hillside
Development Overlay District), councilors asked for a conversion table that would convert slope
percentages to degrees of angle. There were also questions related to the extent of cut and fill and
grading are used to site homes on hillsides. The materials in this attachment are intended to
address some of those questions.
Shown below is a conversion table showing the relationship between degrees of angle and percent
of slope.
Percent Slope/Degree Conversion
~iM~i~_
5.0
10.0
17.6
25.0
33.5
35.0
36.4
.45.0
49.0
50.0
57.7
66.7
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
142.8
173.2
2.5
5.7
10.0
14.0
18.0
19.3
20.0
24.2
26.1
26.6
30.0
33.0
35.0
38.6
42.0
45.0
55.0
60.0
Additional questions related to the practice of cut and fill, (grading) of hillsides to site houses.
Sections 26.060 and 26.070 of the Development describe the street standards, technical reports
and grading plan that are required for construction on slopes exceeding 15% (about 8 degrees
angle of slope). Specific design standards are set forth in the Springfield Public Works' manual
called, Engineering Design Standards and Procedures for street and infrastructure design. The
Community Services Division (Building Department) applies elements of the Uniform Building
Code that provides specific standards for hillside home siting and construction.
Councilor Pishoneri asked how the average slope of a single lot is computed. Article 26.050
(1 )(b) provides the formula. The formula is shown below:
ATTACHMENT
4-1
S = 0.00229 I L
A '
Where:
S = Average % of slope for the area where the slope ranges from 15
percent to 35 percent.
I = Contour interval. (Not greater than 10 feet).
L = Summation oflength of the contour lines within the area where the
slope is from 15 percent to 35 percent.
A = Area in acres of the portion of the parcel where the slope is from 15
. percent to 35 percent.
The attached diagrams are from "Planning for Hillside Development," by Robert Olshansky. The
publication was prepared for the American Planning Association to provide planning guidance for
hillside development. They illustrate cut and fill requirements for building on 10, 20, and 30
percent slope; and the recommended siting of homes on hillsides using "terrain-adaptive"
architecture.
4-2
Figure 6. Cut and Fill Slopes
II(
1 DO-foot pad
.
Fill L~ _- - - -_":>~
125 feet graded
.
II(
.,.
-,
(
166 feet graded
.
-,
(
250 feet graded
)
These diagrams illustrate the amount of grading necessary to create a level pad, 100-feet wide, on
natural slopes of 10,20, and 30 percent. This assumes maxinium 2:1 (50 percent) steepness of cut and
fill slopes, as specified in the Uniform Building Code. The amount of area disturbed by grading increases
dramatically as slopes get steeper because it takes a greater distance for the 2:1 cut and fill slopes to meet
back up with the existing grade. For very steep slopes, it becomes necessary to use retaining walls or
piers in order to create level floor or pavement surfaces.
4-3
Figure 2; Terrain-Adaptive Architecture
Develop terrain-adaptive
architecture for steep slopes.
On steeply sloping sites, the
propsed building should step
down the hillside.
Side garage
access requires less
site disturbance.
Terrain-Adaptive Architecture
. ..,.
~':':"""-::':"','"
..' .
'" '."
". ....
, .
- -~----
-- ;::;:-::;:::::--
---____Unit design can take up grade
within the buiding and provides
easier access from the street.
~ ----
:::-- ----~
---~ ----
----- ----
------
Cross Section of Downhill Unit
Drive-under garage provides
easier access from the street.
Source: Reprinted with permission from Dunald Brandes and Michael Luzier, Dyvc/opillg Difficult Sites: Solutiuns fur Dcvelopas a/ld
B"ilders,@ 1991 by Home Builder Press, National Association of Home Builders, 1201 15th St., N,W" Washington, DC 20005, page 48,
4-4
6